Domino the whole point of having this done by some of us, including HISTORIANS and ARCHITECTS OF ARMENIA is to have people like you know your history better, and presented to you by your own people, not that was presented to you by SOVIET UNION or other states such as Persians and FURKS... So what you are saying is we should forget the history of Armenians and let them claim that we became Armenian from their tribes?

ARE YOU NUTS DOM? ARE YOU ON SOMETHING? buddy you need to take it easy on the drugs... what's wrong with you dom? I tought you were a serious man... What you are actually doing is the same as it has been done for ages, that's why you don't know the truth behind the history... I am guessing we should forget about METSAMOR and let Persians or if you would rather have the FURKS claim it eh? are you actually going to tell me now that what we are fighting for is a waste of time? then why won't we forget about the genocide as well, anyways after some 1000 years everyone is going to forget about it...

I don't know what is wrong with you bro, but you really need to get a vacation and get your toughts together, because I know as of today you are fighting for a cause and it is your belief, so if the history is something you are not into, then just stop what you are doing because your off with a wrong beginning!!!

Aratta, if you continue further in that thread you will see that I had no idea what the project was really about. I thought the site title was that because it was the name of your username. I first thought your project was related to stuff like counterings on youtube etc. To find out that the title represented really the subject surprised me.

Domino, Ashot clearly said in his post that it's an HyeForum project. There was never a talk about my username. You even said "Don't forget Mamig, Babig when you change it..., it will fit very well there and plus having an Artsakh... ". What does Mamig, Babig got to do with my username?

Well, its ok domino. Don't feel bad about it. You can still do your search on Persian sites while we gonna work on creating our armenians site.

Ashot, our history as Armenians does start from 600-550BC, that is from when we were identified and with some homogeniouty.

Even if the criteria to being a homogeneous national grouping is the "identification" by another entity, most of whiom were primitive tribal marauders who had relativley recently obtained control of Sumerian cities, that is incorrect by at least 1635-1685 years. The first mention of an Armenian state was by Naram-sin on his campaign to the north in 2235 b.c. on a campaign memorial stellate. Armenians were more or less a confederate entity all the way up to the 11th century, even during the centralized state with its capital at Ani.

So far as I know, Armenians are the sole people who are subjected to proving their history and existence by "foreign eyewitness accounts" as the primary method. For example, the Armenian king Aram mentioned by Movses of Khoren is clearly the "Urartuan" Aram.

QUOTE

If you push that history to 3000 BC, then Persians and others from the region will have as much legitimity to claim that history as being part of theirs. The Persians spread their language from the province for Fars about the same time.

Claims by others is negated by the need to source from facts. Facts say that the probability of Armenian statehood dating beyond, way beyond, the Behisitun dating is very strongly supported despite the alleged absence of native testimony in written form. I use the term alleged to remind readers that Movses of Khoren did allude to a history that connected Armenians directly with Aram of the Bianili.

QUOTE

The spread of Indo European language was at about 2000 BC, we probably share much more with the Hittites than some Ararrata groups which much little is known.

As far as I have read, there is no ethnic differentiation between the "arratta groups" and the Hittite. The assumption by linguists, particularly before the topic was throughly politicized, is that all of Asia Minor was largley ethnolinguistically homogeneous.

QUOTE

Armenians are a mixture of all those people, including the Phyrigians and the identity really appeared at about 600 BC. The concept of ''proto-Armenian'' is not much important for us..., what we need to do is preserve our known history not some speculative history of what happened few thousands of years BC.

That has long ago been discredited.

QUOTE

But if you want to veste time and energy on old history do so, it will be more relevent to wok on the Phrygian script writtings, and if you want to push a little bit further maybe Hieroglyphic Hittite: http://links.jstor.o...9...>2.0.CO;2-L (pay particular attention on what it says about Armenian and Phyrigian).

This is a long article by Gelb and Bonfante. I will read it. Past reading of Gelb has revealed a strong a bias in avoiding all data that directly point to Armenian existence in periods we are dealing with.

Hittite has been established as a close language to Armenian long ago, since its decipherment. This topic has been covered on this forum many times.

Guy's this looks like Azeri intellectuals mythologies about their eternel Azerbaijan. I don't understand what is the point of attempting to go that far in history when a history starting from 600 BC is more than impressive, only the Greeks, the Persians from the region can pride themselves about.

Because the facts point to the Armenian presence to that time. What is impressive about avoiding evidence?

Thank you Garmag jan, and Hagopn jan we trully appreciate your efforts and trying to explain the reality of the issue, rather than believing what other nations present...

Domino jan, let me suggest you something, if Jstor is so much as trying to proove that Aratta is a persia city state, why can't they present the wealth or any proove that they have from 3000 b.c. in regards of the city state, but we can proove it and have enough evidences? Which can lead to only one answer that we are right and they are wrong!!!

By the way to let you know we will not stop with Aratta, we will go further back into History and present it in websites and especially in HyeForum. Everyone must know the reality, and everyone must know where our roots came from...

[19] Aratta was a city, city-state, or country with which Sumerians had close trade and religious ties in the third millennium B.C. Its location is not known. Of four general sites suggested for Aratta, two are located in eastern Asia Minor: the Van-Urmia area and the Ayrarat district of historical Armenia. The Anshan-Hamadan area of western Iran was the choice of S. Cohen who translated one of four sources to mention Aratta, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. However, since the publication of that work (1973), several of the criteria he used for locating Aratta have been challenged (78).

Aratta, apparently, was under the special protection of the Sun god's daughter, Inanna, the goddess of love and war. In "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta", the goddess and/or her statue were taken from Aratta to the Sumerian city of Uruk by the ruler of Uruk, Enmerkar. Now believing himself to have the goddess' protection, the Sumerian king challenged the lord of Aratta. Enmerkar ordered him to send to Sumer precious metals, precious stones, building materials and the craftsmen to transform them into shrines (79). The lord of Aratta is willing to provide the materials if Enmerkar will send him large amounts of barley. When the barley arrives in Aratta, its lord unexpectedly refuses to fulfill his part of the agreement. After ten years, Enmerkar again sends his herald to Aratta. This time, the lord of Aratta challenges Enmerkar to select one of his champions to fight in single combat with one of Aratta's champions. Enmerkar accepts. Because his response was lengthy and his herald was "heavy of mouth", Enmerkar inscribed his message on [20] clay tablets and sent them to Aratta with his herald. The poet implies that this was the beginning of writing (80). However, at this point the famine, which apparently had been plaguing Aratta, lifts and Aratta's ruler takes courage, believing Inanna had not really abandoned him. Although the ending is fragmentary, Aratta eventually seems to provide the materials and craftsmen.

In a second Sumerian myth, "Enmerkar and Ensuhkeshdana", the lord of Aratta demands the submission of Enmerkar, king of Uruk, and the return of the goddess Inanna to her home in Aratta. Enmerkar refuses and demands Aratta's submission. The lord of Aratta consults with his advisors who urge him to capitulate, which he angrily refuses to do. Then his priest comes forward and boasts that he will subdue Uruk and other territories through magic. The lord of Aratta delightedly rewards the priest and sends him to Uruk. But the priest is assassinated there; and the lord of Aratta submits to Uruk (81).

Aratta is mentioned again in a third, briefer story known as "Lugulbanda and Enmerkar". In this myth, Enmerkar of Uruk is under military attack from the Martu people. Enmerkar desperately sends his messenger, Lugulbanda, to Aratta to the goddess Inanna, here called his sister. Inanna's response is unclear (82). However, it appears that Aratta again supplied Enmerkar with metals, precious stones, and craftsmen; and there is a suggestion that the materials were transported to Uruk by river (83). Finally, Aratta appears in a fourth myth, "Lugulbanda and Mount Hurum". Enmerkar and his army are traveling to Aratta to make it a vassal state. En route they stop at Mount Hurum where Lugulbanda becomes ill and "dies". His comrades place his body on Mount Hurum, [21] intending to retrieve it after their war in Aratta. However, Lugulbanda was not really dead. After praying to the sun, moon, and the star Venus, he emerges from his trance and wanders the highlands. Unfortunately, the ending of this story is lost (84).

The four myths outlined above portray Aratta as a wealthy and militarily powerful state with which Sumer had relations from very early times. It was located some distance from Sumer and protected by its forbidding mountains, but it was not so distant as to prevent trade relations. Aratta had building materials, precious stones, metals and craftsmen skilled in their transformation. Aratta also had primacy with regard to the religion of the mother goddess, Inanna, who resided in Aratta, was the patron of that state, and was taken or lured south to Sumerian cities. Uruk and Aratta also were in contest for military superiority--each demanding the submission of the other. The method of transporting the "stones of the mountain" from Aratta to Uruk and of transporting grain from Uruk to Aratta seems consistent with such trade historically between the Armenian highlands and areas to its south, namely, by boat from Aratta south, and by pack animal from Uruk north. If Aratta is indeed located in eastern Asia Minor, the general implication of the Aratta cycle of myths is that Aratta played a seminal role in the development of religion in Sumer, as well as in the construction of its cult structures; and that trade and diplomacy between the two states was of such importance that writing was developed specifically for them.

I know my history, this is enought for me then having to adhere to pseudohistory. It amount to the same sort of links that Azeri historians make to speak of their ''eternel Azerbaijan.'' I am fighting the distortion of our history, it would be highly hypocritical of me to support this sort of position.

3000 BC is nonesense, the linguistic shift as well as gene pool shift in a period of 5000 years for that part of the world, would make of Arrata if encestors of Armenians, as well as encestors of Persians, Greeks and even the Hittites etc. This thesis defy all common sense, it's not serious. We don't even know if Arrata was only a Sumerian legend or if it discribed some reality.

I did not forget Metsamor, I only question the interpretation of those historical relics. Phrygians had a language which were written on stone, which we could study, yah, a language prior to the modern Armenian alphabet, but instead some prefer to push this back far which result is to discredit us. Do you think that Azeri or Turkish ''strategists'' will address our more serious history when you are giving them materials which they can use to discredit us without having to address the serious stuff?

While you waste your time on this, the history of Artsakh is distorted..., Khachen, a fully Armenian Kingdom, the history of Armenia back from Tigran the Great to now is distorted. Those are the more important and serious issue. You are ready to trade this for some speculations from 3000 BC?

QUOTE (Ashot @ Mar 16 2008, 01:12 AM)

Domino the whole point of having this done by some of us, including HISTORIANS and ARCHITECTS OF ARMENIA is to have people like you know your history better, and presented to you by your own people, not that was presented to you by SOVIET UNION or other states such as Persians and FURKS... So what you are saying is we should forget the history of Armenians and let them claim that we became Armenian from their tribes?

ARE YOU NUTS DOM? ARE YOU ON SOMETHING? buddy you need to take it easy on the drugs... what's wrong with you dom? I tought you were a serious man... What you are actually doing is the same as it has been done for ages, that's why you don't know the truth behind the history... I am guessing we should forget about METSAMOR and let Persians or if you would rather have the FURKS claim it eh? are you actually going to tell me now that what we are fighting for is a waste of time? then why won't we forget about the genocide as well, anyways after some 1000 years everyone is going to forget about it...

I don't know what is wrong with you bro, but you really need to get a vacation and get your toughts together, because I know as of today you are fighting for a cause and it is your belief, so if the history is something you are not into, then just stop what you are doing because your off with a wrong beginning!!!

Domino, Ashot clearly said in his post that it's an HyeForum project. There was never a talk about my username. You even said "Don't forget Mamig, Babig when you change it..., it will fit very well there and plus having an Artsakh... ". What does Mamig, Babig got to do with my username?

Well, its ok domino. Don't feel bad about it. You can still do your search on Persian sites while we gonna work on creating our armenians site.

Mamig Babig comment was in relation to what I thought the site was about, about Armenian history..., your initial plan on youtube was what you should have done..., it would have helped the cause billions of time more. You had good idea's, why did you change those initial idea's of yours?

I know my history, this is enought for me then having to adhere to pseudohistory. It amount to the same sort of links that Azeri historians make to speak of their ''eternel Azerbaijan.'' I am fighting the distortion of our history, it would be highly hypocritical of me to support this sort of position.

With all due respect, you are "fighting" your own complexes. Nothing else. All who hold this position in such an immutable manner always have other issues. Your stated reason is "not to look like Turks and Azeris." Armenians are not making claims on lands they were not native to. Armenians are making claims to their own homeland, one to which there are more than enough links that date back beyond the so-called "Behisitun dating."

Once again, let's not obsess ourselves with what other cultures do with hsitory as our benchmark. The fact is that there are strong links between the ancient Asia Minor cultures and Armenia. The facts that are there exceed in quantity to those who make assumptions on the existence of the Celts in parts of Europe and Great Britain, for example.

QUOTE

3000 BC is nonesense, the linguistic shift as well as gene pool shift in a period of 5000 years for that part of the world, would make of Arrata if encestors of Armenians, as well as encestors of Persians, Greeks and even the Hittites etc. This thesis defy all common sense, it's not serious. We don't even know if Arrata was only a Sumerian legend or if it discribed some reality.

The fact is that the linguistic migration is also under scrutiny, and the migraytion theories you have under your arm are increasingly discredited. The Armeno-origin theory is gaining weight, but the politicized academic circles refure to acknowledge it.

QUOTE

I did not forget Metsamor, I only question the interpretation of those historical relics. Phrygians had a language which were written on stone, which we could study, yah, a language prior to the modern Armenian alphabet, but instead some prefer to push this back far which result is to discredit us. Do you think that Azeri or Turkish ''strategists'' will address our more serious history when you are giving them materials which they can use to discredit us without having to address the serious stuff?

Writing that survives is not the sole indicator. The main difference between Armenian and Phrygian in terms of remnants is the Hellenic influence, direct influence due to proximity, predates to the Armenian. Phyrigians were immersed in the cultural sphere of the hellenes much earlier than the Armenians, and thus the Phyrigians left behind what Armenians could not at that time.

The hellenistic remnants in various parts of Armenia more strongly influenced by greek culture are also survivors. The fact is that they don't know how hellenized the remnants of Phrygian are, whether or not the latter was more akin to Armenian due to the lexical and grammatical affinity, or whether or not Phrygian was a dialect of Armenian-related Asia Minor languages (which they still cannot decide were of the satem or centum branches) later strongly influenced by Greek.

QUOTE

While you waste your time on this, the history of Artsakh is distorted..., Khachen, a fully Armenian Kingdom, the history of Armenia back from Tigran the Great to now is distorted. Those are the more important and serious issue. You are ready to trade this for some speculations from 3000 BC?

This is an irony. You are trading the ancient past for the sake of the more current due to fears of Turkish and Azeri ridicule. There is no trade involved by the ones who want to see and examine what links Armenians have to the inhabitants of ARMENIA 3000 years ago, 4300 years ago, and so on.

Ironically. distrortions start at a earlier era. The fact is that Armenian presence in the ancient world has given way to distortion of later periods. One example is the confusion between "Iranian" and "Armenian" even when dealing with remnants in the Shirvan region, what is now Kakhetia in Georgia, what is the entirety of southern Armenia, and so on. The degree and expanse of distortion is so great, one does not know where to start.

Mamig Babig comment was in relation to what I thought the site was about, about Armenian history..., your initial plan on youtube was what you should have done..., it would have helped the cause billions of time more. You had good idea's, why did you change those initial idea's of yours?

Domino jan, please stay away from telling me what to do. Also, please don't compare us with the azeris. I don't know what's behind your aggression, but it's obvious you try to provoke arguments. Plese brother, if you are not gonna help us with the project, at least don't stand on our way.

Hagopn, Garmag, and Melitenetsi, you input and support is appreciate. Thank you all!

It's odd that the above (Jstor) site's index of contributing countries involved... DOES NOT INCLUDE ARMENIA!Practically the whole of the world's nations are there...except us ?

Congradulations for the Aratta project! It rocks

That is part of a pattern to discredit Armenian claims on pretty much everything.

There are so many outlandish articles at J-stor that deal with Armenian history where silly assumption after another is make "the orthodox view" simply due to the fact that a lie has been repeated many times. The rule on ancient history is that if you repeat a lie enough times and have enough "specialists" (most of whom, like Gelb, did not know Armenian), you have an "established view." The manner with which you are shut-out, much like watching Domino pretend to ignore what I write, is by being ignored or ridiculed in the trenches, prior to getting published.

Now the Internet is evening the field a bit, but not by much as of yet.

Domino, please brother, seriously stay away from something that will never fit in your brain, because you haev way more important things in there for your own cause... you have your beliefs and 99% of the poeple have theirs... You think that your priority is to fight the current problems, and our duty is to fight for our history... If the history is not cleared up as to who is who, you will never clear up that you are you Domino... get the point or should I revise my say - IF WE DON'T PROOVE OUR EXISTANCE TROUGH OUR HISTORY - YOU CANNOT PROOVE THAT THERE WAS NO AZERBADRJAN BEFORE 1918...

Dom jan, one more think - can you ever go beyond ARMENIAN AND AZERBADRJAN AND FURK conflicts and try to work your brain on some things more important... In another words, I will explain this sentence in another topic... I am sure you won't miss it

Materials and evidences on Thraco-Phrygian and Armenian relation are abound.The similairities and the arguments are the strongest provided. Herodotus claim is supported from the linguistic affinities as well as logical historical continuity. Eudoxus of Cnidus in the 370 BC commented on the similairities between Armenian and Phrygian, at about that time, both people could have probably spoken with eachothers and could have understood the basics (Hurrian borrowings in Armenian minus). Herodotus arguments were supported by his descriptions of the Armenians serving for Xerxes in 480 BC, the Armenian contingents were armed and prepared like the Phrygians. This is also supported by Strabo on the described style which was Thessalian (for his period as the Thessalian's had Phrygian style for horesemanship too).

The evidences are abound, the Phrygian advance into Armenia is documented with archeological findings such as what has been found in Irbil (acient Arbela), which shows Phrygian type wearings, which are very similar to later Armenian carvings..., those Thracian type tumuli were found in Malatya, Kharput and Diyarbakir. Herofotus place the migration before the Trojan War.

This is one side of the Armenian identity, the other would be the Uratians..., the mixture gave the Armenians with significant homogeniouty to be identifiable at about 600-550 BC. The Persians in all respect had also similar ethnigenises contruction which spread from Fars.

You are also assuming that I am doing this out of fear of Turkish and Azeri ridicule. While the fear is true, the way you place it make it sound as if I'd fear regardless of if the arguments may be valid. I fear ridicule, period..., presenting the Phrygian theory as something which was the product of some sort of politically correctness is absurd. The Phrygian theory is not Turkish propaganda, it is valid and very much supported. Had the Turks paid a little more attention, they'd see that East Southern Phrygia is now part of the current republic of Turkey still.

I also don't understand what you mean when you cover the Phrygians and Armenians, I have yet to see those who oppose this thesis to address the very strong arguments adequatly.

One thing which you may be right, is that migration alone is not an accurate description of what happened. What probably happened is that the natives of the region assimilated with the Colonists. After the fall of Urartu, the Armenians have become the predominent people. Recent findings already suggest that Urartu was a very heterogenous and multi-ethnical society, and gradually a group of the population acquired enough self identification to take advantage of the fall and request independence with the Orontid Dynasty.

QUOTE (hagopn @ Mar 16 2008, 01:29 PM)

With all due respect, you are "fighting" your own complexes. Nothing else. All who hold this position in such an immutable manner always have other issues. Your stated reason is "not to look like Turks and Azeris." Armenians are not making claims on lands they were not native to. Armenians are making claims to their own homeland, one to which there are more than enough links that date back beyond the so-called "Behisitun dating."

Once again, let's not obsess ourselves with what other cultures do with hsitory as our benchmark. The fact is that there are strong links between the ancient Asia Minor cultures and Armenia. The facts that are there exceed in quantity to those who make assumptions on the existence of the Celts in parts of Europe and Great Britain, for example.

The fact is that the linguistic migration is also under scrutiny, and the migraytion theories you have under your arm are increasingly discredited. The Armeno-origin theory is gaining weight, but the politicized academic circles refure to acknowledge it.

Writing that survives is not the sole indicator. The main difference between Armenian and Phrygian in terms of remnants is the Hellenic influence, direct influence due to proximity, predates to the Armenian. Phyrigians were immersed in the cultural sphere of the hellenes much earlier than the Armenians, and thus the Phyrigians left behind what Armenians could not at that time.

The hellenistic remnants in various parts of Armenia more strongly influenced by greek culture are also survivors. The fact is that they don't know how hellenized the remnants of Phrygian are, whether or not the latter was more akin to Armenian due to the lexical and grammatical affinity, or whether or not Phrygian was a dialect of Armenian-related Asia Minor languages (which they still cannot decide were of the satem or centum branches) later strongly influenced by Greek.

This is an irony. You are trading the ancient past for the sake of the more current due to fears of Turkish and Azeri ridicule. There is no trade involved by the ones who want to see and examine what links Armenians have to the inhabitants of ARMENIA 3000 years ago, 4300 years ago, and so on.

Ironically. distrortions start at a earlier era. The fact is that Armenian presence in the ancient world has given way to distortion of later periods. One example is the confusion between "Iranian" and "Armenian" even when dealing with remnants in the Shirvan region, what is now Kakhetia in Georgia, what is the entirety of southern Armenia, and so on. The degree and expanse of distortion is so great, one does not know where to start.

The way you are viewing my actions is shared with the way I see your action. My humble opinion is that vesting energy on 3000 BC on speculative history while almost everything from 200 BC to present of our history is distorted and falsified is compleatly worthless. Continue doing so while our historians are called Caucasian Albanian, our principalities as Caucasian Albanian etc...

QUOTE (Aratta-Kingdom @ Mar 16 2008, 01:39 PM)

Domino jan, please stay away from telling me what to do. Also, please don't compare us with the azeris. I don't know what's behind your aggression, but it's obvious you try to provoke arguments. Plese brother, if you are not gonna help us with the project, at least don't stand on our way.

Hagopn, Garmag, and Melitenetsi, you input and support is appreciate. Thank you all!

Materials and evidences on Thraco-Phrygian and Armenian relation are abound. The similairities and the arguments are the strongest provided. Herodotus claim is supported from the linguistic affinities as well as logical historical continuity.

Such as? Sorry you have to be specific so I can show Herodotus does not stand a CHANCE against linguistic, archaeological and anthropological evidence that Armenians are native Indo-Europeans, who have formed in their own homeland in Armenian Highland.

QUOTE

Eudoxus of Cnidus in the 370 BC commented on the similairities between Armenian and Phrygian, at about that time, both people could have probably spoken with eachothers and could have understood the basics (Hurrian borrowings in Armenian minus).

And what specific evidence did Eudoxus of Cnidus use?

QUOTE

Herodotus arguments were supported by his descriptions of the Armenians serving for Xerxes in 480 BC, the Armenian contingents were armed and prepared like the Phrygians. This is also supported by Strabo on the described style which was Thessalian (for his period as the Thessalian's had Phrygian style for horesemanship too).

Do you know the location of Phrygia? It is located in Asia Minor not in Thrace. Immediately to the west of Armenia. Phrygians went from Armenia (the cradle of Indo-Europeans) to Europe NOT the other way around. As far as the weaponry goes, the weaponry and armaments can be explained by this fact alone (being neighbors of Armenia hence the borrowing) and/or the fact that armaments and weaponry of MANY nations looks virtually identical. This was the case in antiquity and this is the case today. Armenian Armed Forces of today wear the Greek camoflage uniform and carry Russian (AK-47s, AK-74s) automatic rifles. Does this mean that they are Greeks or Russians? Do you see how weak that argument? Please discontinue the use of that wrong logic if you want to be take serious.

QUOTE

The evidences are abound, the Phrygian advance into Armenia is documented with archeological findings such as what has been found in Irbil (acient Arbela), which shows Phrygian type wearings, which are very similar to later Armenian carvings..., those Thracian type tumuli were found in Malatya, Kharput and Diyarbakir. Herofotus place the migration before the Trojan War.

Once again see above. The clothing has been shared by neighboring peoples for millennia. The traditional clothing of Armenians in parts of Armenia for instance was indistinguishable from that of neighboring peoples (look at traditional Caucasian clothing, Georgians for instance - the Caucasian warrior dress - the Cherkesska - was even adopted by Russian Cossacks - I guess they are Caucasians also?).

QUOTE

This is one side of the Armenian identity, the other would be the Uratians..., the mixture gave the Armenians with significant homogeniouty to be identifiable at about 600-550 BC. The Persians in all respect had also similar ethnigenises contruction which spread from Fars.

Do you mean Urartians? Urartu is the Assyrian name for Ayrarat (Ararat). I can give you specific quotes from the Old Testament where Ararat is used as the synanymous name for Armenia. The native Armenian population of Ayrarat (Ararat) NEVER referred to themselves as 'Urarteans.' The Kingdom was centered around the ancient Armenian capital of Van-Tosp (Biayna-Tushpa).

Speaking of Fars. I would refer to the trilingual (Farsi, Elamite and Akkadian) Behistun inscription of King Darius which notes Arminiya (Farsi), Harminya (Elamite) and Urartu (Akkadian - Akkadian being the parent of later Assyrian) respectively for the same nation and same people. So the name Urartu is simply the Akkadian/Assyrian for Armenia (Arminiya).

QUOTE

You are also assuming that I am doing this out of fear of Turkish and Azeri ridicule.

I never assume anything and go by historic evidence and hard facts. Nothing short and nothing more.

QUOTE

While the fear is true, the way you place it make it sound as if I'd fear regardless of if the arguments may be valid. I fear ridicule, period..., presenting the Phrygian theory as something which was the product of some sort of politically correctness is absurd. The Phrygian theory is not Turkish propaganda, it is valid and very much supported. Had the Turks paid a little more attention, they'd see that East Southern Phrygia is now part of the current republic of Turkey still.

Please once again see the location of Phrygia. It is NOT located in Thrace, but in Asia Minor (Anatolia) neighboring Armenia. The Phrygians crossed the Bosphorus and entered Thrace where they were known as 'Brigs.'

QUOTE

I also don't understand what you mean when you cover the Phrygians and Armenians, I have yet to see those who oppose this thesis to address the very strong arguments adequatly.

And I am yet to see ANY evidence that can stand up to latest linguistic and archaeological evidence that clearly shows Armenia and Armenians as the native Indo-European residents who formed in their own cradle of civilization. Please refer to the November 2003 issue of Nature where two linguists have presented their findigs based on comparison of 87 languages (old and new, dead and spoken).

QUOTE

One thing which you may be right, is that migration alone is not an accurate description of what happened. What probably happened is that the natives of the region assimilated with the Colonists. After the fall of Urartu, the Armenians have become the predominent people.

Absolute hogwash. I already showed you that the name 'Urartu' and 'Urartians' is simply the Akkadian and Assyrian name for Armenia.

QUOTE

Recent findings already suggest that Urartu was a very heterogenous and multi-ethnical society, and gradually a group of the population acquired enough self identification to take advantage of the fall and request independence with the Orontid Dynasty.

May I know the specific details of the 'recent findings?' so I can refute them outright. Armenians are native Indo-Europeans who have their genesis in their sacred highland. Armenia is the cradle of Indo-Europeans and the origin of the Neolithic Revolution that began the very civilization as we know it. I can give you a long list of countless scholars that have proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt. We are working on puting together as vast database based on the tireless work of these luminaries who have given best years of their life to this great work.

You know I like you Domino, but you are simply wrong about Armenian ancient history. In fact, you are often wrong about history when it comes to make sense of things. I know you'll be hurt to hear this, but it's true. Western narrative of Armenian history has so often been so wrong or wrongheaded that it would be more efficient to dismiss it altogether and start all over again. I won't make up Germans' or Hungarians' history for them, and will be grateful if they don't try to fit their prejudices into my history. I am advocating no more than critical thinking, respecting hard evidence, respecting lack of hard evidence, reason, and common sense. If one follows a reason-dictated path, there is no way one would arrive at the Western-dictated narrative. At the end of one of Samuel Noah Cramer's books on Sumer, you'll find a glossary, where Sumerian "ururu" (an obvious cognate of Armenian "Oror", and for all we know "ururu" might have been pronounced "oror", given the limitations in deciphering vowels) is given as "lullaby". It's hard to believe that he was unaware of the connection. He probably used Armenian to decipher that and some other words. It's useful to know that he spent a lot of time in the archaelogical museum of Istanbul, and no doubt made good friends there. You see, it would be rude of him to connect Aratta to the Sumerians . He said it was a city in "western persia", oh darn, just short of Armenian highland, yet gives no reason for such placement, even though the known location Ararat-Urartu is screaming at both him and the reader. You don't have to take such "coincidence" at face value either. Sumerians had no reason whatsoever to have special dealings with some obscure place "in western persia". They had ample reason to travel upstream the two rivers that brought life, quite literally, to their country. And they in fact revered the northern highlands as the place that brought them life.

As far as when to date the start of a coherent beginning of an Armenian nation, you must know that there was a very scientific study (Gray & Atkinson) that, among other things, assigned the "split" of Armenian from the Indo-European tree at about 5000 years ago. If a coherent Armenian "nation" (group, tribe, whatever) was forged from a soup of diverse peoples at 600 BC, it would have left a profound linguistic signal that would have been screaming the date at us. Guess what? There isn't such a signal. The only "signal" we have is the split 5000 years ago. On the other hand, to me, the oldest "written" record of Armenian presence is Hayasa-Azzi (circa 1400 BC, and it's not surprising that they would take many centuries to become a distinct and serious contender to the Hittites, the more dominant fellow Indo-Europeans living on adjacent lands, and Hagop would say they were one and the same, and I am open to the possibility). Any serious doubt about the full Armenianness of Hayasa-Azzi is indicative of extreme bias, innocent or otherwise.

As far as I know, Phrygian is a poorly attested language. There is simply not enough of it on record to make any specific inferences. That was also why it wasn't included in the Gray & Atkinson study. There simply isn't enough of it there to support an unbiased, scientific analysis. Whatever the case may be, a similarity, borrowed or otherwise, between two indo-european languages spoken by two nations living in the same vicinity for a while is not particularly shocking and does not necessiate cooking up stories of Armenians being Phrygian colonists and an Armenian nation beamed into existence and utter dominance in eastern Asia Minor, completely displacing the "urartu" with no record of their "arrival" from the west at anywhere near the time in question. And complete eradication of an earlier culture so completely in a few decades is a feat that few if any of the "aggressive" nations have ever accomplished, and is completely out of character for Armenians as attested by their entire history whether you start it from 3000 BC, 1400 BC, or 550 BC. It's laughable if it weren't regarded as the "orthodox" view by lousy academics that live in industrialized and powerful countries.

All of this were discussed in this forum before for the benefit of those readers with ability to reason. To no avail it seems.

Revise your thinking.

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 08:55 AM)

I know my history, this is enought for me then having to adhere to pseudohistory. It amount to the same sort of links that Azeri historians make to speak of their ''eternel Azerbaijan.'' I am fighting the distortion of our history, it would be highly hypocritical of me to support this sort of position.

3000 BC is nonesense, the linguistic shift as well as gene pool shift in a period of 5000 years for that part of the world, would make of Arrata if encestors of Armenians, as well as encestors of Persians, Greeks and even the Hittites etc. This thesis defy all common sense, it's not serious. We don't even know if Arrata was only a Sumerian legend or if it discribed some reality.

I did not forget Metsamor, I only question the interpretation of those historical relics. Phrygians had a language which were written on stone, which we could study, yah, a language prior to the modern Armenian alphabet, but instead some prefer to push this back far which result is to discredit us. Do you think that Azeri or Turkish ''strategists'' will address our more serious history when you are giving them materials which they can use to discredit us without having to address the serious stuff?

While you waste your time on this, the history of Artsakh is distorted..., Khachen, a fully Armenian Kingdom, the history of Armenia back from Tigran the Great to now is distorted. Those are the more important and serious issue. You are ready to trade this for some speculations from 3000 BC?

Twilight jan, thank you very much for supporting the mentioned "November 2003 issue of Nature where two linguists have presented their findigs based on comparison of 87 languages (old and new, dead and spoken). ", I am very sure you have read the journal and you are fully aware of the facts. Thank you for your response.

Aratta jan, thank you pointing out the facts, you have left no room for me to argue for the cause!!!

Domino jan after this point there is one thing left, do more researches and create more self interest toward knowing the reality, and the true HISTORY!!!